“Ah, Fritz, that was from Powerline, not Drudge. And why do you find it so hard to believe? Look it up, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s news.”

^^Let me know when AP or Reuters is reporting the story; then it will be news. Otherwise its just right wing blog posts with no more relevance than voter suppression stories; that are going to be coming out of Florida and Ohio; that you on the right are going to discount as just left wing blog posts with no basis in truth.

If you find the PA story valid i look forward to you finding the Florida/Ohio stories just as valid – although I won’t hold my breath. i don’t care about any of these rumors and will wait till tonight to see what happens.

“The DAILYFRITZ doesn’t seem to understand DRUDGE does not report news, but links to sites that do. You need to examine the linked source to ascertain credibility.”

^^ I know that but whenever far right BS is posted; Drudge or Daily Caller are an easy way to get to the relevant blog posts. Any anti Obama crap out there will always eventually get posted to Drudge or DC. Pro Obama stuff – not so much.

@charlesmurray
So I stared at MD’s g@y marriage prop, greatly conflicted between strategic objections and gay friends in loving relationships, and then…
…said “What the hell,” and voted yes. The g@y couples I know behave as the Jonathan Rauch’s of the world said they would. So I gave up.

@charlesmurray
So I stared at MD’s g@y marriage prop, greatly conflicted between strategic objections and g@y friends in loving relationships, and then…
…said “What the hell,” and voted yes. The g@y couples I know behave as the Jonathan Rauch’s of the world said they would. So I gave up.

MSNBC makes CNN look like a meeting of the John Birch Society.
@johnnydollar01
Exactly what an impartial journalist would say. RT @joanwalsh: Great to hear @mitchellreports call a 7-8 hour wait to vote a “poll tax.”

I don’t know what happened with Matthews this morning. He looked like he had just been rolled out of the drunk tank, and he lost his mind about three words into his first sentence. He started to answer Alex’s first question, then he shifted to yelling that anybody who hadn’t voted yet shouldn’t be watching her show. He repeated this weirdness 3 or 4 times, then Alex tried to tell him to “give my show a break”..which really set him off.

Eventually she got around to asking another question, which he interrupted, prompting her to say, “Wait, I’m not done.” She was seriously pissed, and looked like she was about ready to kick him off the set. Mercifully he was gone after the commercial. A truly bizarre moment.

If something drastic happens, like Romney winning Pennsylvania (which to me, is a “shut off the television” moment, because Romney will win it all, and you can spend the rest of the night not watching breathless coverage)… Matthews might literally have a heart attack on air.

You know what, change that. If Romney wins Pennsylvania, then just tune to MSNBC to see what happens… don’t turn off the television. The reaction will be talked about for a loooong time.

There’s a part of me that says for the sake of the Democrats, the economy better turn around, and big time. If not… 2014 will see a whole bunch of new Republicans in office, and blaming Bush won’t get a Democrat elected in 2016.

On FNC, someone was talking about how conservatives didn’t take the lies from the Demcrats seriously and thinking Americans wouldn’t buy them, but many americans did. As long as the majority of media outlets continue to hide and misinterpret facts, a lot of Americans will be easily fooled.

It’s not arguable that the press covered up Benghazi. They also consistently downplay Democrat extremism on abortion, in favor of an illusory War on Women. Be happy that the bias favors you, and stop denying it. I could say stfu about it, but I won’t.

joe, keep pretending that the MSM doesn’t have their thumb (entire forearm) on the scales. We haven’t had a budget in 3 years, an American ambassador (and border agent) is dead due to negligence at best, malpractice at worst, and medicare will be bankrupt by the time Joe Biden starts a superPAC.

And yet with all that, the most important story in this election was Mitt Romney’s tax returns. And rape.

Yeah, I got a Canadian telling me that Obama won because Americans are stupid, and I’m the one with a “class” problem. Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate who had one good night, then frittered it away by lying his a$$ off to a state he desperately needed to win. You’re gonna cross my border and call us stupid? Stfu.

Fox called VA for Obama. Florida’s outcome will not be known tonight. They will continue counting tomorrow morning.
Romney is a good, decent man with a known record for fixing things. It’s a shame he didn’t defend himself after the barrage of nasty, hateful commercials from the Obama campaign. Hope and change, indeed.

It’s a shame Romney couldn’t stick with a position, and lied his arse off on the way to an election he should have had in the bag. Most wins aren’t the result of a brilliant campaign, but rather a gift from a terrible one. “47%”, “Etch-A-Sketch”, “severe conservative”, “repeal Obamacare”, “I take credit for Obamacare”, “The Italians are shipping your job China”. Mitt Romney threw it away.

It’s funny when you listen to the pundits after the election, and they’re no longer invested in pumping-up the candidate (except for Karl Rove, of course. He might not have conceded Ohio). All the things that were hunky dory a couple days ago suddenly may have been a problem. But God help the conservative who pointed that out at the time.
Still, when you strip it all away, it came down to Sandy. Romney ran a ‘safe’ campaign, and tried to run-out the clock. Had the election been a week earlier, it would have worked. As it is, out of 110,000,000 votes, he lost by one million (according to Drudge). Far from a landslide, and something to keep in mind with the inevitable talk of losing the electorate.

@Joe: Wow. I didn’t call Americans stupid (that’s for smug liberals outside the states to do). I could spend an eternity to defend myself but I know I won’t do a thing for you so I won’t spend too much time.
Putting words in my mouth doesn’t help in proving me wrong. Anyone in any situation without all of the relevant facts cannot come up with the best decisions. These media outlets haven’t even given Americans the chance to consider Benghazi, etc and see if these matters should influence their choice along with the economy.

Fox News and talk radio may have large audiences but the liberal media still makes up the majority of the market. Take a look at the combined viewership of ABC, NBC, and CBS and compare that to FNC for an example.

Yeah, I’ll give a rat’s a$$ about your little theories when you stop pretending everything except FNC and conservative radio is “liberal media”, and that the whole country is blissfully unaware of Benghazi. It’s bull. There’s plenty of information out there – enough that I didn’t vote for Obama again – and the country made a decision: They didn’t consider it a fireable offense in the face of the alternative for the job. This isn’t rocket science..no one was “fooled”. A better candidate would have beat Barack Obama.

out of 110,000,000 votes, he lost by one million (according to Drudge). Far from a landslide, and something to keep in mind with the inevitable talk of losing the electorate.

But that’s just it: it shouldn’t have been close. Any other incumbent with 7.9% unemployment, $6 trillion in new debt, a dead ambassador, author of the most unpopular legislation in decades, more rounds of golf played than budgets passed, and whose plan for medicare is “keep spending till it’s bankrupt” doesn’t even bother to run again, much less win.

Yet people continued to vote for Obama. Either because he promised them a free phone and/or because they didn’t want Chris Matthews to think they were racist. If Republicans can’t beat Jimmy Carter 2.0…

^^Then what? Your right in that given the economy Obama shouldn’t have won, but he did. He ran a better campaign and Americans elected him in an electorial college landslide.

If Romney had of won the popular vote by 50 votes you would be saying he had a mandate so Obama has a mandate. He got over 50% of the popular vote.

Does Boehner have a mandate? Yes, but so does Harry Reid. Boehner lost seats and Reid picked up seats so Bohner is in the weaker position. I think he will bluster that he’s going to hold the line on taxes but in the end in his his heart it he knows he has to compromise or lose the house in 2014.

You can’t fight 21st Century demographics with a candidate and a party trying to recreate 1980. I’ve been telling you for years that the GOP was backing itself into a regional-party-only corner, and last night proved it.

Young people and minorities showed up in large numbers, and they made it clear they’re not interested in the social safety net being dismantled, and the middle class continuing to be gutted, while some smug venture capitalist berates them for “punishing success” and “not being willing to take responsibility for themselves”. Apparently they weren’t thrilled with men explaining how rape works, either.

@ Joe
That wasn’t a dig at mental health folks. That was an, I’ve read that it’s drug addiction, and ‘mental health’ is what they’re saying instead. ‘Mental health’ is vague and easier to explain, I guess. Drug addiction, says you should be in jail.

Was Romney a poor candidate? Meh. He was an okay candidate, lacked the charisma and clarity needed to fight an incumbent like Obama. And had some hard to explain opinion changes, to be sure.

So he wasn’t a great choice, but of the field the Republicans presented, he still was probably the best.

Obama’s strength is his likeability, his confidence, and his social stances. Republicans need to realize that appealing to religious conservatives over issues like abortion and gay marriage aren’t going to serve them in the long run. The folks who support those things now, aren’t going to stop supporting them en mass, as they get older.

Economically, the Democrats are now in a tough position. If things don’t get better by 2014, I predict Republicans will take the Senate. If things don’t get much better after that, 2016 will see another Republican President. The real problem is Democrats now must realize a good portion of their audience was still energized based on race, and racial policies (many of which are unsustainable in the long run, e.g. immigration). That should leave them fearful that in 2016, an old White guy, isn’t going to cut it… and opening our borders further will only lead to increased economic troubles.

Frankly, I wouldn’t envy either party for winning this election. Sure, it gives perks for the SCOTUS. But I don’t believe charisma is going to carry Obama much farther, and we’re still in a heap of trouble that someone is now going to have to deal with, or finally take responsibility for. After two elections, I can’t imagine the “blame Bush” strategy working anymore.

Lots of stuff i the entrails of the election that have not been talked abut yet that will have big effects going forward.

For example Puerto Rico voted, for the first time in a referendum, to apply for US statehood. This will be a huge issue for the Republican House over the next two years as they get to decide if and when it happens. Do they create another overwhelming Democratic voting state or piss off Latinos all over the US by saying Puerto Rico can’t be a state. It’s a lose lose that could cost the Republican Partyt elections for a generation.

Was Romney a poor candidate? Meh. He was an okay candidate, lacked the charisma and clarity needed to fight an incumbent like Obama. And had some hard to explain opinion changes, to be sure.

So he wasn’t a great choice, but of the field the Republicans presented, he still was probably the best.

Obama’s strength is his likeability, his confidence, and his social stances. Republicans need to realize that appealing to religious conservatives over issues like abortion and g@y marriage aren’t going to serve them in the long run. The folks who support those things now, aren’t going to stop supporting them en mass, as they get older.

Economically, the Democrats are now in a tough position. If things don’t get better by 2014, I predict Republicans will take the Senate. If things don’t get much better after that, 2016 will see another Republican President. The real problem is Democrats now must realize a good portion of their audience was still energized based on race, and racial policies (many of which are unsustainable in the long run, e.g. immigration). That should leave them fearful that in 2016, an old White guy, isn’t going to cut it… and opening our borders further will only lead to increased economic troubles.

Frankly, I wouldn’t envy either party for winning this election. Sure, it gives perks for the SCOTUS. But I don’t believe charisma is going to carry Obama much farther, and we’re still in a heap of trouble that someone is now going to have to deal with, or finally take responsibility for. After two elections, I can’t imagine the “blame Bush” strategy working anymore.

Hadn’t hear that. I’ve always said PR should be a state… if we’re financially supporting them, as a “kinda state,” but getting little on our return, what’s the point. I’ve got no problem bringing them into the fold.

But it’s a myth (and somewhat of a racist one) that all Spanish-speaking people want open borders, and for all illegal immigrants to receive citizenship right away.

“I’ve always said PR should be a state… I’ve got no problem bringing them into the fold.”

Republicans have been blocking Washington DC from getting a seat in Congress for decades (even when there is an offset in Utah) There’s no way they go for adding 10+/- sure Democratic votes, 2 Dem Senators and 5+/- Dem house seats.

“But it’s a myth (and somewhat of a racist one) that all Spanish-speaking people want open borders, and for all illegal immigrants to receive citizenship right away.

They don’t make Puerto Rico a state and they lose 90%+ of the US Peurto Rican vote from here on for decades. They become just like Cuban Floridians.

Something I would like to learn: Non-Hispanic whites are always broken down into subsets such as age, sex, education, geography, etc, when discussing their views/politics. Non-whites are usually discussed en bloc. Why?

Because whites have historically been a majority which covers all of the political spectrum, therefore requiring a finer breakdown. As minorities become a larger part of the voting base, those breakdowns will be applied to them, too. Soon.